I don't think there's any reason why women can't be just as good as men are at ignoring "society's expectation" and focusing on the task at hand.
I mean, if it's good writers you're looking for, then aren't you more or less counting on them to have some ability to ignore/subvert/challenge "society's expectation"?
And in fact, if women are in some way more trammelled than men are by society's expectation, then you might expect them to be better than men at turning such expectations upside-down.
I'm not disagreeing with Susan Orlean's initial premise; in fact I'd guess about 90% of my nonfiction bookshelf is made up of the works of male writers. I've often wondered why that would be, but maybe my preferred topics are a factor: War, national security, travel, pop culture. But I still don't think there's any sense in which my tastes select for primarily male writers. A great book by a female writer on a preferred topic will get my attention just as easily: right now I'm itching to read Maria Ressa's Seeds of Terror. Susan Orlean is just verbalizing an idle conjecture, but I wonder if she's looking to explain something for which there is no single or small set of explanations.
Surely the fabled skill at multi-tasking means that one's better at holding all the threads for a big nonfiction work?
I hate this kind of piece. And I'm really looking forward to Kristin Hersh's book - she not only wrote that but a gabillion albums and toured ceaselessly while having four kids.
I have to call bullshit on this whole thing. Why would this affect nonfiction writers any more than fiction if it is indeed about time allocation?
Also, the argument that men feel less bad about prioritizing work applies to ALL career fields.
If there is a lack of female lit nonfiction writers it is probably because they don't feel invited into the field so they either go into journalism and standard nonfiction or into literary fiction. Or maybe a combination. And also maybe no one is publishing them, as another thread points out.
@BlackFrancine: I would hazard a guess that non-fiction usually requires truckloads of research, which in many cases also involves a lot of travel to go and do said research. Fiction can involve a bunch of research and travel too, but it's not as necessary (mostly).
What? Is non-fiction harder to write than fiction so distractions are a bigger obstacle? Are we feeling a little superior, Ms. Orleans? Perhaps she is just jealous of Doris Kearns Goodwin, Alice Sebold, Laurie Halse Anderson, Jeanette Winter, Kay Redfield Jameson, Diane Ackerman, Sarah Vowell, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Elizabeth McCracken. I could go on. There are plenty of talented writers out there. Look out on the web, Ms. Orleans. The sites I travel are female dominated.
Saying women are great "multi-taskers" always seems like such an under-handed compliment used to justify "encouraging" them to work AND take care of kids. "The men couldn't possibly have a career and rear children, so we'll just let women do both and then guilt trip them into the latter."
And it would also be nice for everyone to embrace a variety of different processes for writing and for work in general, and not to privilege one single-minded and traditionally male-associated approach.
I agree with this completely. I have always resented the idea that, in order to be successful at writing, I have to be locked in a room for 8 hours doing nothing else. (Come to think of it, it was a male creative writing teacher who said that this is what he did and obliquely suggested was the only way). I find time to write when I can although, unfortunately (or fortunately?), unemployment has opened up a lot of time for me to write. Last year when I was laid off, I started a novel, and this year when I was laid off again, I wrote third and fourth drafts of it. At the end of the day, though, you have to find what works for you, and a rigid schedule doesn't work for everyone.
I wonder why this seems to apply uniquely to literary non ficiton...?
My mum writes non-fiction and has for my entire life. She may be the exception, but she managed to be both a very active mum and a fairly prolific writer.
I know that when I've been alone or isolated for a long time, even (especially?) when I'm trying to work on a project I care about, I cannot do as good of a job. It could just be my style or that I am a fundamentally lazy person, but I need frequent distractions. This doesn't necessarily mean face to face contact, but I've written some of my best work around or on days that I've also been emailing or instant messaging friends.
And as far as creative work goes, I really can't imagine writing anything particularly interesting if I haven't interacted with people recently. How could I do justice to an attitude or persona I want to catch on paper if I'm not witnessing it?
06/11/09
I mean, if it's good writers you're looking for, then aren't you more or less counting on them to have some ability to ignore/subvert/challenge "society's expectation"?
And in fact, if women are in some way more trammelled than men are by society's expectation, then you might expect them to be better than men at turning such expectations upside-down.
I'm not disagreeing with Susan Orlean's initial premise; in fact I'd guess about 90% of my nonfiction bookshelf is made up of the works of male writers. I've often wondered why that would be, but maybe my preferred topics are a factor: War, national security, travel, pop culture. But I still don't think there's any sense in which my tastes select for primarily male writers. A great book by a female writer on a preferred topic will get my attention just as easily: right now I'm itching to read Maria Ressa's Seeds of Terror. Susan Orlean is just verbalizing an idle conjecture, but I wonder if she's looking to explain something for which there is no single or small set of explanations.
06/10/09
I hate this kind of piece. And I'm really looking forward to Kristin Hersh's book - she not only wrote that but a gabillion albums and toured ceaselessly while having four kids.
06/10/09
06/10/09
Also, the argument that men feel less bad about prioritizing work applies to ALL career fields.
If there is a lack of female lit nonfiction writers it is probably because they don't feel invited into the field so they either go into journalism and standard nonfiction or into literary fiction. Or maybe a combination. And also maybe no one is publishing them, as another thread points out.
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
* I have actually heard a man say this.
06/10/09
I agree with this completely. I have always resented the idea that, in order to be successful at writing, I have to be locked in a room for 8 hours doing nothing else. (Come to think of it, it was a male creative writing teacher who said that this is what he did and obliquely suggested was the only way). I find time to write when I can although, unfortunately (or fortunately?), unemployment has opened up a lot of time for me to write. Last year when I was laid off, I started a novel, and this year when I was laid off again, I wrote third and fourth drafts of it. At the end of the day, though, you have to find what works for you, and a rigid schedule doesn't work for everyone.
I wonder why this seems to apply uniquely to literary non ficiton...?
06/10/09
Joan Didion
Cheryl Strayed
Joann Beard
Joy Williams
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
[www.amazon.com]
(Damn good book. Highly recommended.)
06/10/09
06/10/09
Let's not forget Erica Jong.
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
Ann Finkbeiner
06/10/09
06/11/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
And as far as creative work goes, I really can't imagine writing anything particularly interesting if I haven't interacted with people recently. How could I do justice to an attitude or persona I want to catch on paper if I'm not witnessing it?
06/10/09
I think she also skips over the fact that perhaps not as many female literary non-fiction writers are being published.
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09